Democratic regimes deploy civilian police rather than military against protesters

Evidence

The military forces, trained to fight a foreign aggressor, have always been a dubious instrument for civil-war purposes; even under totalitarian conditions they find it difficult to regard their own people with the eyes of a foreign conqueror. More important in this respect, however, is that their value becomes dubious even in time of war. Since the totalitarian ruler conducts his policies on the assumption of an eventual world government, he treats the victims of his aggression as though they were rebels, guilty of high treason, and consequently prefers to rule occupied territories with police, and not with military forces. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 942 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

In France, police generally carry lethal arms. In Great Britain (with the exception of such special forces as antiterror squads) police usually carry batons, but not lethal arms. That difference emerged early in the nineteenth century, as a democratizing British regime created specialized but unarmed police forces for urban patrol and crowd control. … French police operated much longer and more extensively as part of the national military, and retained their arms. As a consequence, British claim-makers suffered plenty of bruises but few deaths as compared with their French counterparts. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1316 (#expands, via linked claim)

To seize upon a first approximation of the difference between those two models, we must consider what it is that distinguishes the prerogatives of a soldier on the battlefield from those of a police officer on patrol when it comes to the use of lethal force. Whereas a soldier may, with impunity, “shoot to kill” at any legitimate military target, a police officer can fire only as a last resort, and only as a proportionate response to an imminent threat. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 539 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: High-capacity regimes’ monopoly on coercion means their own agents dominate the violence that occurs — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737; Whether police carry lethal arms reflects the regime’s democratization path — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1316; Police replace armies because totalitarian rule treats conquered peoples as domestic traitors — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 942 (+1 more)

Related

• Whether police carry lethal arms reflects the regime’s democratization path (similarity 0.88)
• Police replace armies because totalitarian rule treats conquered peoples as domestic traitors (similarity 0.87)
• Modern police pose the threat standing armies once did (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Whether police carry lethal arms reflects the regime’s democratization path #expands (0.75) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1316
• Police replace armies because totalitarian rule treats conquered peoples as domestic traitors #contradicts (0.75) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 942
• Soldiers and police have fundamentally different legal rules for lethal force #qualifies (0.72) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 539